Time to move forward, IRB?

Mike Whittaker


Referees in England
Joined
Mar 5, 2005
Messages
1,778
Post Likes
2
It is unfortunate that argument still continues on the rights and wrongs of a red card which, it would appear, is now accepted as a correct decision by most referees and those who manage and administer the game of rugby. So why does the controversy continue and what can be done to prevent a recurrence of such misunderstanding?

The IRB was responsible for the original directive issued. The intent of the directive is clear even if the precise wording leaves something to be desired. Those concerned with applying it have had no difficulty in understanding it and yet even at the highest level it has not been fully applied by all on every occasion.

Among the fans who watch our game there is clearly a sad lack of understanding of the law or its application.

The IRB and constituent bodies should be concerned by this - such ignorance based controversy should not overshadow our game in this way. The time has come for the IRB etc to address the issue of awareness of the laws and guidance directives issued across the globe. For players and referees, ignorance of the law is no excuse, but for the wider audience a bit of publicity and promotion would surely not be out of order? How this is achieved is a matter for PR professionals and the sooner they begin to look at it the better.

On a slight aside there have been comments as to whom the game of rugby 'belongs'. Is it players, fans, etc? I would suggest that it belongs to nobody - it is there for us all to enjoy in whatever capacity we wish, and it is for all of us to ensure that it continues to the benefit of all.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,805
Post Likes
3,145
Yes, I agree, and really it's not so hard
-- put that 2009 directive (and others like it) into the law book
-- put it on the IRB website
-- put it into the press-packs at the RWC. (I have read every broadsheet since Saturday, and all of them have looked up the laws etc to try and explain to their readers what AR was doing, but only one, the Daily Telegraph has managed to find the 2009 memo. The journalist in that case? Brian Moore. He probably became aware of the memo from this website. (I am not joking, that's how I found out abou it)
 

The Fat


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
4,204
Post Likes
496
It is unfortunate that argument still continues on the rights and wrongs of a red card which, it would appear, is now accepted as a correct decision by most referees and those who manage and administer the game of rugby. So why does the controversy continue and what can be done to prevent a recurrence of such misunderstanding?

The IRB was responsible for the original directive issued. The intent of the directive is clear even if the precise wording leaves something to be desired. Those concerned with applying it have had no difficulty in understanding it and yet even at the highest level it has not been fully applied by all on every occasion.

Among the fans who watch our game there is clearly a sad lack of understanding of the law or its application.

The IRB and constituent bodies should be concerned by this - such ignorance based controversy should not overshadow our game in this way. The time has come for the IRB etc to address the issue of awareness of the laws and guidance directives issued across the globe. For players and referees, ignorance of the law is no excuse, but for the wider audience a bit of publicity and promotion would surely not be out of order? How this is achieved is a matter for PR professionals and the sooner they begin to look at it the better.

On a slight aside there have been comments as to whom the game of rugby 'belongs'. Is it players, fans, etc? I would suggest that it belongs to nobody - it is there for us all to enjoy in whatever capacity we wish, and it is for all of us to ensure that it continues to the benefit of all.

Good post Mike.

I was part of a junior rugby club committee last year as the publicity officer. I produced a monthly newsletter for each player to take home and stick on the fridge as it obviously contained club news, the next 4 weeks draw, representative news, upcoming events and courses and a "KNOW THE LAWS" section where I would simply pose a question and reveal the answer in small print at the end of the newsletter. The response was surprising with quite a few people approaching me at club games or training sessions and commenting that they really liked the "Know The Laws" section in the newsletter (lots of "Gee, I didn't know that law").
How easy would it be for rugby shows on television to have a small segment where they could discuss a selected law each week with the assistance of a guest referee? In the next episode following an incident such as SW's tip tackle, they could discuss the law AND the associated directives, again with a qualified referee, to enlighten the masses.
I was asked by a bloke at work today what I thought of the SW tackle and Rolland's decision. This guy is just you average Joe when it comes to watching rugby and is obviously one of those who would have been hugely influenced by the television commentators on Saturday evening. Once I explained the law and the directive to him, he fully understood and accepted that Rolland was correct. It took all of about 60 seconds.
 

Taff


Referees in Wales
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
6,942
Post Likes
383
.... I was asked by a bloke at work today what I thought of the SW tackle and Rolland's decision. ... Once I explained the law and the directive to him, he fully understood and accepted that Rolland was correct. It took all of about 60 seconds.
Exactly. The general public and TV commentators spout on about "intent" and "malice" etc etc when they obviously haven't read the memo qand probably haven't even read the lawbook. Surely (like Rulings) Directives should be incorporated into the next version of the lawbook. This is simple common sense gents, its not brain surgery.

As I was told once "the trouble with common sense, is that it isn't very common".
 
Last edited:

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,106
Post Likes
2,131
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
the wording of the directive still leaves me with questions which others may share.

The directive is broken into 2 parts: the first deals with the drive and the 2nd with the drop. The author has intentionally separated them.

The drive is clearly a red card.

The drop however is qualified. To paraphrase, the drop is legal provided the tackler does 2 things: doesn't drop the ball carrier from height and has due regard to the ball carrier's safety.

I find this curious.
 

Taff


Referees in Wales
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
6,942
Post Likes
383
... The directive is broken into 2 parts: the first deals with the drive and the 2nd with the drop. The author has intentionally separated them. The drive is clearly a red card. The drop however is qualified. To paraphrase, the drop is legal provided the tackler does 2 things: doesn't drop the ball carrier from height and has due regard to the ball carrier's safety. I find this curious.
With respect I think you're misread it Dickie. The way I read it, the drop is not "legal" provided the tackler doesn't drop the ball carrier from height and has due regard to the ball carrier's safety, BUT if the tackler does the 2 things you mentioned, it could reduce it to a YC instead of a RC. And depending how well he "had regard to the BCs safety" eg if he managed to catch the BC (or at least protect his head and neck) before he hit the ground, it may even be reduced to a just a PK with no card.

So, either way its:
  • a PK at the absolute minumum,
  • a YC if you dropped a player but showed regard to his safety and tried to protect him and
  • a RC if you just let him go and dropped him "without regard to his safety.
 
Last edited:

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,805
Post Likes
3,145
the wording of the directive still leaves me with questions which others may share.

The directive is broken into 2 parts: the first deals with the drive and the 2nd with the drop. The author has intentionally separated them.

The drive is clearly a red card.

The drop however is qualified. To paraphrase, the drop is legal provided the tackler does 2 things: doesn't drop the ball carrier from height and has due regard to the ball carrier's safety.

I find this curious.

I think he is trying to say that if - for example - - you keep hold of the player, lower him down, but lose your grip 5cm from the floor and he drops 5cm... then a ref might conclude there was regard for safety, and he wasn't dropped from a height, so can give less than a RC.
 

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,106
Post Likes
2,131
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
I think you're misread it Dickie. The way I read it, the drop is not "legal" provided the tackler doesn't drop the ball carrier from height and has due regard to the ball carrier's safety, but it may reduce it to a YC instead of a red.

My bad. Replace the word legal with downgraded.

It is still curious that drive & drop are dealt with differently, no?
 

Darryl Godden

Facebook Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2011
Messages
98
Post Likes
5
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
I have to admit, my eyes were opened to discover the offence was a straight red, with no margin for the referee to interpret intent/malice.

That is my major problem with the directive. I would like to think the majority of players are not 'dirty' and this directive could see numerous players unwittingly sent of if it is applied as intended.

I know the majority of people on this site have stated they hope to see a number of players sent from the field of play and this would filter through to clubs and players, an unwanted result of this could be that players become hesitant in the tackle, or we no longer see the big hits.

For me, that would be a shame.
 

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,981
Post Likes
1,838
Exactly. The general public and TV commentators spout on about "intent" and "malice" etc etc when they obviously haven't read the memo. Surely (like Rulings) Directives should be incorporated into the next version of the law book. This is simple common sense gents, its not brain surgery.
That used to be the case, up to 1996. I have found it very useful.

In practice few people ever bother to use the law book, including commentators, but it would at least give us something to point at (and it would please crossref!). Still would not cover memos and conferences in a timely fashion.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,805
Post Likes
3,145
That used to be the case, up to 1996. I have found it very useful.

In practice few people ever bother to use the law book, including commentators, but it would at least give us something to point at (and it would please crossref!). Still would not cover memos and conferences in a timely fashion.

well many journalists/commentators reached for the law book this weekend to explain AR's decision -- not the printed Law book, I'll bet, but the one on-line ..and they haven't found what they needed.
 

Taff


Referees in Wales
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
6,942
Post Likes
383
My bad. Replace the word legal with downgraded. It is still curious that drive & drop are dealt with differently, no?
The way I read it, the drive and drop are only treated differently if the tackler "had regard to the players safety".

If he had no regard for his safety and just lets him drop - they're treated the same ie :norc:

If he did show regard for his safety (eg tried to catch or at least protect the dropped player) - they're not treated the same, as the drop could be downgraded to a :noyc: or possibly even a := if you did a really good job of protecting him.
 
Last edited:

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,033
Post Likes
1,775
My bad. Replace the word legal with downgraded.

It is still curious that drive & drop are dealt with differently, no?

I just presumed it was for clarity Dickie, to ensure that people understaood that a drop was still a "bad thing" generally speaking.

I would concur that terms like "from height" and "regard to safety" are a tad ambiguous, though I would like to think that my suggestion of dropping one's child/whatever may be a good gut-reaction test for these.

eg if I feel unconmfortable dropping my child head first from "a height of X" then I can't have "regard for their safety" if I do so... n'est-ce pas?


YMMV of course :)

didds
 

Dixie


Referees in England
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
12,773
Post Likes
338
this directive could see numerous players unwittingly sent of if it is applied as intended.

I know the majority of people on this site have stated they hope to see a number of players sent from the field of play and this would filter through to clubs and players, an unwanted result of this could be that players become hesitant in the tackle, or we no longer see the big hits.

For me, that would be a shame.
IF coaches are coaching their players techniques that risk serious injury, and the red cards that go with Law 10 actions, then those coaches deserve to lose lots of games because their players are unavailable because their dangerous techniques have seen tehm red carded. If players are not being coached these actions, but do them anyway, then hopefully they'll change their technique after the first stint on the sidelines.

Darryl, honest answer please. Which is better: a player with unintentional bad technique endures a red card and a three week ban; or your son spends 60 years in a wheelchair with spinal cord damage? If you'd rather see your son in the wheelchair, I've nothing more to say to you. If you'd rather see the smaller consequence, why the f*%k are you arguing the toss?
 

Darryl Godden

Facebook Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2011
Messages
98
Post Likes
5
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
Clearly you misunderstand the point.

If you're going to base every law decision on that fact that a player may get injured then we all may as well give up now. This is not bad technique, it has been tackling for decades. Now the IRB on the back on one incident (which was a bad one) against BoD, they've introduced this ambiguous, inflexible law.

On another note, I find this mildly ironic:

 

AlanT


Referees in England
Joined
Mar 30, 2005
Messages
604
Post Likes
1
How easy would it be for rugby shows on television to have a small segment where they could discuss a selected law each week with the assistance of a guest referee? In the next episode following an incident such as SW's tip tackle, they could discuss the law AND the associated directives, again with a qualified referee, to enlighten the masses.

Chances of directly educating the masses are pretty remote IMO.

Need to educate the educators - in this case commentators and pundits.

Could the IRB / RFU insist on giving detailed briefings to them as part of granting TV rights?
 

Adam


Referees in England
Joined
Apr 2, 2008
Messages
2,489
Post Likes
35
I have to admit, my eyes were opened to discover the offence was a straight red, with no margin for the referee to interpret intent/malice.

That is my major problem with the directive. I would like to think the majority of players are not 'dirty' and this directive could see numerous players unwittingly sent of if it is applied as intended.

I know the majority of people on this site have stated they hope to see a number of players sent from the field of play and this would filter through to clubs and players, an unwanted result of this could be that players become hesitant in the tackle, or we no longer see the big hits.

For me, that would be a shame.

You have to ask the question why the directive was brought in in the first place. It was brought in because dangerous tackles of this calibre weren't getting adequately penalised (RC). The referees' judgement was deemed not good enough in trying to eradicate this type of tackle. If you didn't have this crystal clear directive then there would be so much more controversy around any referee who gave a RC for this type of tackle.

You can't have it both ways.
 

Adam


Referees in England
Joined
Apr 2, 2008
Messages
2,489
Post Likes
35
well many journalists/commentators reached for the law book this weekend to explain AR's decision -- not the printed Law book, I'll bet, but the one on-line ..and they haven't found what they needed.

The guy on Scrum V was using a 2007 law book.
 

Adam


Referees in England
Joined
Apr 2, 2008
Messages
2,489
Post Likes
35
Clearly you misunderstand the point.

If you're going to base every law decision on that fact that a player may get injured then we all may as well give up now. This is not bad technique, it has been tackling for decades. Now the IRB on the back on one incident (which was a bad one) against BoD, they've introduced this ambiguous, inflexible law.

On another note, I find this mildly ironic:


It didn't take the iRB 8 years to respond to the BO'D incident.

The iRB only acts on things that its unions and law body asks for. In an increasingly litigious society then you cannot permit things which have a serious risk of injury.

That's why the iRB changed the scrum sequence for SAFETY. And by all accounts injuries at the scrum have significantly reduced.

You forget the overarching principle of rugby - SAFETY. This is paramount; even before enjoyment, equity and law.
 

Mike Whittaker


Referees in England
Joined
Mar 5, 2005
Messages
1,778
Post Likes
2
All of the above interesting contributions support my view that the IRB need to rewrite the directive with a little more thought and without confusing vertical and horizontal.

We then need a proper cascade of the information through unions and constituent bodies to ensure all in the game are informed.

Indeed I understood that there were going to be changes in law after the RWC? Perhaps the whole lot can be addressed??
 
Top